Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hippocrates is not suggesting that your husb. was stealing yr car !

There may be legitimate reasons why a vehicle was being driven without the owner's consent (e.g. by a garage, but not in the course of repair work - that is not theft -others may think of better examples).

By demanding a police report, the council is limiting the ground by changing it from
taken without the owner's consent
to
taking it in the course of theft

which restriction they are not allowed to place on it, which amounts to procedural impropriety.


--------------EDIT
All that said, on checking the backs of the PCNs, I cannot see the clause @Hippocrates identified

(please provide a copy of the police crime report or insurance claim).

not could I advance far enough on the challenge PCN pages to see if it appears there?

(PCN nos/reg mark not recognised?)

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-ave-bus-gate-33e-pcn-33e-using-restricted-to-certain-ve-957/msg14128/#msg14128

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2110212199
Appellant Chidi Egenti
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EA02WFR
PCN Details
PCN IS2284987A
Contravention date 12 Feb 2011
Contravention time 12:06:00
Contravention location Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty amount GBP 120.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Egenti appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.



One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.



In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.



The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.




I will draft a better one.

The Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable since  the third ground of appeal, box C on the website inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further, by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided, this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. For example, it is entirely arguable yhat a relative might have taken the keys to the car without my consent. In such circumstance, I would not report the matter

DO NOT cite the case.